When the man with the bat tried to attack the driver, investigators said, the second driver pulled out a gun and shot the first driver twice...
The shooter – whose identity has also not been released – had a license to carry a concealed weapon and investigators said he acted in self-defense and will not immediately face charges.
You know, "riddled with bullets..."?
Ahh, forget it.
Still, riddle me this, Caped Anti-Gun Crusaders: Would you prefer if the man being attacked had been unarmed and bludgeoned to death?
[Via Tony G]
8 comments:
Yes, you know they would. Why do you even have to ask?
When's the last time you hears self defence get accepted as a legitimate use to oen a firearm?
I particularly like the part where it says, "not immediately face charges". Anybody else get the feeling the reporter hopes that charges will be filed in the future?
S & H, personally I'm fascinated that the reporter seems intent on revealing the identity of someone who no doubt wants to remain as anonymous as possible, so as to avoid the potential revenge attack from the batman's friends.
The astonishing thing is that this report of a bona-fide DGU (defensive gun use) actually made it into print.
Got to give a little credit where credit is due.
Riddler! ROFL!
Well played, Sir.
I am sure,or hope so, that they would not want the man beating. However, I am sure they would have just wanted him to give the badguy what he wanted and avoid any confrontaion. In other words, be a sheeple just like them. Because violent self defense solves nothing right? (wink).
"Because violent self defense solves nothing right? (wink)." Conservative Scalawag.
Well it does appear that it can lower someone's batting average.
Post a Comment